Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

(2) I'm not an idiot and spare me the lectures on the Internet being a public space.

That having been said:

The fact that I have NO legal right -- no control whatsoever, and legally that is not an exaggeration -- to protect the many many words I have written on these forums over the last 9 months, leaves me feeling profoundly vulnerable. (I checked this with my lawyer, an ex-boyfriend.)

I'm not going to leave the forums. But I am considering deleting the vast majority of my posts. (Maybe to no good effect since there are probably print-outs.) I do NOT want the legal right to those words to be in the hands of an incorporeal corporation.

Am I over-reacting? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I've dealt with publishers/media houses before. Oh yes I have. And have dealt with the venality of publishers and media big-wigs, big time. Erm, have I have mentioned that I know several, and that they are all despicable?

The issue again is one of future possibilties. Without a reassurance from corporate HQ and a rephrasing of the "terms of use" I will continue to feel vulnerable.

Fucking hell, I hate this. This space is literally my one poz support group. You (whoever you are) try living in semi-rural Iowa.

Ugh.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Wes, why are you flame-baiting me? The picture is NOT of me but of a great contemporary painting, as my caption makes clear.

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

I just assumed that was a picture of you. How would I know that? Thanks for explaining!

I still find it offensive and that's the reason I don't direct young adults such as my nephews here.

But I guess I don't have any legal rights either!

I've come back to edit this post for all those who've been reading this ridiculous thread! In this, I was trying to illustrate a point.

Maybe I didn't do the best job of it, but I will admit after having a thread intentionally highjacked for the purpose of instilling fear and panic in the group I'll admit I was exasperated. To top it off, a few other in the trouble making clique took an easy shot by posting totally irrelavent and snide remarks in other subjects I'd started. These are the few Bad apples trying to Rot the bunch and it's clear as day. It's my opinion the forum would be a better place without them!

Flame baiting would be me saying something like "Gee, get a little education and learn that Lucian Freud is one of the greatest contemporary painters and that Leigh Bowery was one of the greatest performance artists of the twentieth century and that he died of complications from AIDS. Also, do not let any young adults go to any contemporary-art museums lest they spy the offensive Mr. Freud hanging on the walls."

Logged

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Issues of flame-baiting and philistinism aside, let's get back to the main topic.

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Ok, I'll bite. If you're worried about it then delete them. I think it's overkill but hey, that's just me.

I mean, what nefarious possibilities are you envisioning every night while you're trying to fall asleep? Rape and pillage of your inner soul by some punk writer trolling for ideas on the internet? I'd assume that goes on all the time.

And no, I don't even read the mumbo jumbo legalese bullshit when I sign up on a web forum. Why bother? IT'S THE INTERNET. It's basically the same as standing on a crowded street corner and shouting out things to passersby that you don't know at all.

Tempest in a teapot if you ask me, as is a prudish disgust of a painting of Leigh (who I once saw at am after hours club dancing with a toilet seat lid as a hat, face covered in feces... NOT PRETTY!)

This is a public forum. It always has been. The fact that the information you've posted can be used to identify you is a surprise to no one, except maybe you. If you're worried about it, do what others do and use a picture of something else besides yourself and don't put anything in your posts like "hi, I'm John Smith and I live at 123 mockingbird lane".

Sorry you feel so violated, but, seriously, nothing about the nature of posting on the Internet has changed. Even with the silly CSI forum, there isn't anything that couldn't have happened already.

Logged

Floating through the void in the caress of two giant pink lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith.

if deleting makes you feel safer then go ahead but have some ben-gay, icy-hot or tylenol on hand (for your hand). instead of posting you can just pm people. i am gonna guess that to some, that art avatar looks like lipodystrophy (buffalo) and we have members here with lipo. just something to consider

I'm of the opinion that the people that feel vulnerable feel that way for the simple reason that before the CSI forum, this was a safe place to speak openly simply because it was below the radar of the main stream. Unless you were specifically looking for it you didn't find it. Even if you did you were unlikely to read through the forums.

Now we're getting exposure on prime time TV. It's kind of like having a safe little hole in the wall bar that you can hang out in and be comfortable that all of a sudden gets world wide exposure.

I feel as if the general public that comes to check out the CSI forum will likely come "Check out all the AIDS people"I understand having multiple accounts is a bannable offense but frankly I'd prefer to have a CSI forum only log in. One that can be separate from this one.

Austin.... how come you've never complained about all the other avatars that fit your idea of "body beautiful?"

It's really easy not to see anyone's Avatar. Just check the box beside: Don't show users' avatars in your profile setup page. Of course that only functions if you're logged in. I've chosen not to see them mostly because I find them visually distracting.

Jay -- I'm trying to keep my temper in check, but this is really a hit below the belt. I would strongly advise you not to corrupt our forums by taking such a drastic action.

If you empty your posts, you will be doing an injustice to all the members who replied to your posts, because their replies will then be nonsensical. The threads in question won't make sense, or will make less sense.

We've had a couple of folks do this in the past, and I've always viewed it as a highly selfish form of "forums vandalism."

The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities. It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate. You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

If you want to start stirring up fears in these forums that we're about to morph into something we're not, that we're going to start raping and pillaging the personal lives of people living with HIV, then I suggest you find some other forums to post to.

I'm really pissed about this Jay. This is way over the top, and those of us that run these forums don't deserve your implications. What's so incredibly bizarre about this is that you asked one of our moderators if you could join our blogging team just a few days ago -- AFTER the CSI forum opened.

Somebody please calm me down. It's been a very long week. I'm sorry if I've overreacted here. Maybe I need to step away from the forums for the weekend. Ugghh.

As someone who has brought up concerns to you before, and with your strong voice of reason calmed me down, I can say that you are not overreacting. I wish people would see the greater picture. It seems to me an extreme form of narcissim to think that there are nefarious sources somehow plotting to destroy the lives of people here. That said common sense should still be the ultimate rule of posting. If an individual chooses to post his or her picture, along with detailed sexually entertaining yet possibly illegal activities, it is at that person's own risk. No need to consult a lawyer. By the way, I have one between my legs right now. He quoted case law that states that no reasonable person has an expectation of privacy in a public forum, period.

Also again, let's return to the narcissism. Though we enjoy the stories of piquant members, I don't think any of us are out to expose anybody for their libertine adventures. More power to those individuals provided they are not harming anyone else in the process. I would be hard pressed to find members of the Bush administration trolling this website to prosecute meth/coke/ and gerbil abusers. Although PETA might have something to say.

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff. It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here. It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Logged

Floating through the void in the caress of two giant pink lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith.

It seems to me an extreme form of narcissim to think that there are nefarious sources somehow plotting to destroy the lives of people here. That said common sense should still be the ultimate rule of posting.

Spot-on, Rob!

The thing is, what used to be known as ďcommonĒ sense seems not to be so common anymore, online or off alas.

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff. It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here. It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Glad you mentioned that as I was going to suggest it myself. I think going back and deleting and majorly editing a post days and months later is the height of on line depravity and cowardice, but then I'm kind of pet peeve-ish about such things as I've been posting on forums for a decade.

Someone who was banned here recently (*cough*) did this very same thing to cover up why they were banned I guess, but it really frustrates my research department.

Hi Jay,I understand your concern. If I remember right, I believe that Peter made it clear, that the CSI writers, producers, et al were to utilize the CSI forum only, and the remainder of the forums were to remain just as they have since the inception of the site. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Peter's intention was to utilize this opportunity as a mass teaching tool, for both the production team, and the audience at large.I have been watching very closely over the last four or so days, and have noticed a definate increase in Peter, and Tim's participation of the forums, along with Ann, and Andy. They have been moderating, and keeping close watch over the flock to make sure our other regular forums are not disturbed, or invaded by curiosity seekers.So far, I think things have gone well. Two mornings ago I spotted a new person who started a thread in Living, They had titled their thread something like "I'm not HIV+ but...." I reported it, and it was moved to the approrpriate forum within the minute.If we really want to educate the public, we need to be unified in our message, and know that our individual lives will not be put under a microscope. There just simply are too many of us, for anyone to pick out a certain person. If anybody needed to be frightened, I guess it should be me, but I'm not.Even Tim wasn't exactly enthusiastic about the portrayed mode of contact, but we also know that the public at large probably accepted this without judgement. If it were portrayed in a usual manner, the audience wouldn't have been able to make it to second base, because of their collective judgement being clouded. The simple truth is, that you almost have to give them pablum in order to work your way up to real truths.Ahhhhhh, I'm babbling. I do understand your thought process, but would ask you to think carefully before deleting all of your posts. The people who will find this site, will likely only read what is on the current pages anyway. I like to look upon this as an opportunity to educate the public on the realities of our lives with HIV/AIDS. Once they make it past the pablum, they can read about the real facts.(meat&potoates)

Logged

No Fear No Shame No StigmaHappiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you have.

The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities. It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate. You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

And what the hell is that supposed to mean? Don't try to pull the proverbial wool over the member's eyes here, Peter. You are every bit as much of a puppet to S&S as the members here are to you. I have no doubt that when you sold out to the devil for your moments of fame, that the members here were the last thing on your mind. The mere plot is evidence of that. It represents not even a fraction of the true incidence. If members here were your priority, you would have a) set the forum up in the manner that Grinch states, as a completely separate forum, or b) none at all. Once again the stigma is fortified.

I think the concept was a terrific idea, had the potential vector of transmission been truly in line with the "real world." That is apples to oranges from the true motive, however.

Peter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff. It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here. It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Thanks for the suggestion! I just checked our software manual, and we DO have that option. I've set the time limit for editing one's posts to 48 hours.

There is a limit to modifying. I can't modify posts more than 10 days old I think. I tried to remove some personal stuff, but can't. At least I got to some of the recent stuff. I have too many posts to modify anyway. I talk too much I guess. If I could push a button and wipe out all my posts I would. In any event, the wise ones siding with Staley have pointed out the narcissism of worrying about ones posts and the futility of thinking we're safe here. There are no safe harbours. I'm gonna do a little thinking, and maybe just leave these forums all together. The Founder and his sycophants can post nice, clean, impersonal, safe stuff. Time to have a bowl of soup and decide.Razorbill

Peter, pissed as you are, the post was NOT a "hit below the belt." In my own opinion of course. Go back and read my original post, and other related posts.

First, I did NOT imply that ANYONE had any malign intentions. Moderators, forum members, S+S management etc. This is in fact what you assume I intended or implied.

Second, my beginning this thread has NOTHING to do with the CSI forum issue. Zip.

Third, my blogging idea was of Someone Anonymous -- someone who can write about living with HIV and yet remain, in Ralph Ellison's words, an Invisible Man. Which is kind of an important point for many people. I had several pages ready, but obviously, it would seem, the whole thing is now moot. Your implication that blogging=blatant self-exposure is simply limited and unimaginative.

Fourth, your accusations. Corrupting the forums. Forum vandalism. Stirring up fears. Morphing. Way over the top. This, in response to my expressing a legitimate concern. A concern that is shared by many. I'm not angry, though perhaps I should be. You have my 900+ posts to read to see whether I have been a temperate poster or not. If anything, your response is what is intemperate.

Fifth, the legal language. You say: The legal language of our terms of use is what it is, pretty broad legal language, written by a lawyer, to assure that S+S maintains broad legal protection for it's past and future activities. It is NOT a reflection of how we actually operate. You have our long history to look at before deciding whether we are worthy of your trust.

Who's the naive one here, me or you? (Ad hominen: in a recent post you described yourself as a "media whore.") I've been burnt, very badly, by just this sort of "broad legal language" in the past. Since when do good intentions get covered by "broad legal language"? And that language may be standard lawyerese, but does that mean I'm not allowed to feel violated by its breathtaking implications and possibilities? Peter, my next suggestion is you re-read Matt's (newt's) thread on this topic. I started this thread after posting in that one, to highlight the fact that most forum posters aren't even aware that their words and life stories are someone else's property. I merely asked, as did Matt, that that aspect of the forums be reconsidered.

Sixth, if there's ANYTHING below the belt in any of this is your decision -- unilateral once again -- to time-limit the editing options. Great. I now can't take any measures I feel might be necessary to protect myself. You can have fantasies all day long if you like of an ultra-paranoid Jay (or paranoid forum members in general). By imposing, dictatorially, a 48-hour time-limit on post-modification, you've sort of proved how little control I or anyone has on his or her words. Lesson learnt.

Feel free to apologize. Or not.

Jay

Edited to add, well within the time limit, a link to Matt's thread titled The answer to Mr Staley's email to me asking if I'm off is "yes, probably" -- http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=9034.0 Matt's original post, and my response in that thread, is the context for this one.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2007, 03:53:36 PM by lydgate »

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Best think about what you post before posting it. After all... Zuiker already wants to make a book out of us.

edit: cross posted from off-topic:

I support this decision in general because if you say it, you own it and must deal with the consequences.

But the current fact is that some people here feel they did not expect the random influx of csi people to inspect and review their posts and that is a breach of 'confidentiality' in many peoples opinions.

Yes, it is a public website, but with FEW viewers who have a vested interest, either in fears or in support.

Making it a public spectacle seems... wrong.

In this context, preventing the deletion of prior posts is wrong, because THIS is not what we signed up for and if somebody wants to delete all their posts because their MOTHER or somebody else watches CSI should be permitted ini my book.

Peter, remove this restriction and let people do what the want because THIS is not what some signed up for and there may be REAL consequences for them.

We've invited the world into our sanctuary. Guess it's time to clam up and post in a manner that does not include deep feelings, fears or any other such thing that can hurt me. For me it was worth the risk before we invited the world. Now it's just not worth it.

Jay... I think that you have some valid concerns, but I would point out that this forum has two legal characteristics that you have not addressed:

1. It is owned and operated not by the members, but by the owner of the domain. I assume that's a corporation, but it doesn't really matter. You use it at their discretion. You will find this to be the case in any Internet forum. They are not democracies and have the right to make policies which best suits their perceived goals. They are under no obligation to consult anyone. They are providing us with a free service. You are not paying for it. A poster has as much legal right to their words posted in a forum as they are granted by the terms of service agreement In short, it is not a democracy.

2. If you disagree with a policy of a forum owner, your legal recourse is to start your own Internet board.

I got to deal with these issues first hand when I was a forum moderator and owner. It's tough, and some people feel they have some kind of rights on this issue, but "rights of use" here are not granted by anything but the right of the owner to grant that use, to change the policies etc.

I think it's pretty amazing that these forums are available at all. While I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, it really isn't that much of an imposition to follow the rules.

Logged

Floating through the void in the caress of two giant pink lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith.

that's the core of the issue.. respect for users who DO feel a 'sense', however impractical in this medium, of privacy.

That 'sense' has been abused by this decision.

Now, overall, I do like having CSI here. Please don't misunderstand.

But I will also feel much more guarded in being honest and what I post knowing that MANY more people are reading this forum.

Such as: claiming a fraudulent $4000 claim on my health care spending account... It's easy.. they just want to see a receipt... easy to make on your computer.

Such as: claiming a hardship withdrawal from your 401k plan for 'eviction'. It's easy.. they just want to see a letter from 'your' leassor.

Now, I'm not saying I have personally done either. But I also do what I need to survive realistically.

These are two very simple examples of things that could bring hardship upon people who do post their real actions and feelings here.

Not to mention, possible exposure to employment discrimination because your boss, who just happens to be a CSI fan and has too much time on his hands (and what boss doesn't, they don't DO anything) visits this forum.

There are not only privacy issues but also potentially criminal ones that 'thus far' have been 'under the radar'.

Now, with such a direct link... um... yeah... I'm innocent... I didn't do any of the above.

Jay... I think that you have some valid concerns, but I would point out that this forum has two legal characteristics that you have not addressed:

1. It is owned and operated not by the members, but by the owner of the domain. I assume that's a corporation, but it doesn't really matter. You use it at their discretion. You will find this to be the case in any Internet forum. They are not democracies and have the right to make policies which best suits their perceived goals. They are under no obligation to consult anyone. They are providing us with a free service. You are not paying for it. A poster has as much legal right to their words posted in a forum as they are granted by the terms of service agreement In short, it is not a democracy.

2. If you disagree with a policy of a forum owner, your legal recourse is to start your own Internet board.

I got to deal with these issues first hand when I was a forum moderator and owner. It's tough, and some people feel they have some kind of rights on this issue, but "rights of use" here are not granted by anything but the right of the owner to grant that use, to change the policies etc.

I think it's pretty amazing that these forums are available at all. While I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, it really isn't that much of an imposition to follow the rules.

I agree that these forums are amazing. I also agree that Internet forums aren't (and cannot be) ideal democracies. I would add that the moderators are also amazing and have been doing a pretty swell job of keeping this place, yes, amazing.

As for the rest... I respectfully diasagree.

(1) Just cuz Internet forums aren't full or ideal democracies (and cannot be) doesn't mean that they can't be more democratic. I'll spare examples for the moment.

(2) There is nothing innate or automatic about forum "material" being the owner's/corporation's property. It's simply set up that way in many cases, for all sorts of reasons. It's perfectly possible -- yes, I checked with other forum "owners" and a lawyer -- to have a flourishing Internet forum where the posts remain the property of the posters. Or at least have some control over the use of their posts (including the right to modify or delete). Even when forums are provided as a free service. As some of the UK posters have pointed out, it's a question of dignity and respect.

Trust me, nothing about this is a tempest in a teapot. Or bizarre. Which is of course only my own opinion.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Second, my beginning this thread has NOTHING to do with the CSI forum issue. Zip.

Well Jay then why did you hijack the thread: Formal Complaint About CSI?

I understand your feelings and I wouldn't have been as upset if you hadn't derailed my own topic and I'll admit it was immature of me. For that I appologize.

Seriously, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from and what your intent is?

But I won't appologize to the other clique of regulars who have intentionallly repeatedly derailed topics I've either started or contributed to! You can see some of the antagonistic intentions earlier in this thread! From now on I will just report those people to the moderators and set these people to ignore because I'm certain they have nothing to contribute other than the occasional witty insult they've spent all day cooking up!

Please stop all this mumbo jumbo fears about people stealing your life stories or some excutive at CBS investigating who you are. What you wrote you already did and if you had a pic of yourself in the avatar and now are freaking out that people will see you then you should have thought about that b4. Thats why I don't post pictures of myself because I am a private person and I am not proclaiming to be spreading my coodies and having coke binges like a few gals in here. If you didn't type anything wrong or illegal in here then why worry. Spilling your guts and fears here isn't gonna contribute to anything bad even if CBS or anyone else reads it.

I agree that these forums are amazing. I also agree that Internet forums aren't (and cannot be) ideal democracies. I would add that the moderators are also amazing and have been doing a pretty swell job of keeping this place, yes, amazing.

As for the rest... I respectfully diasagree.

(1) Just cuz Internet forums aren't full or ideal democracies (and cannot be) doesn't mean that they can't be more democratic. I'll spare examples for the moment.

(2) There is nothing innate or automatic about forum "material" being the owner's/corporation's property. It's simply set up that way in many cases, for all sorts of reasons. It's perfectly possible -- yes, I checked with other forum "owners" and a lawyer -- to have a flourishing Internet forum where the posts remain the property of the posters. Or at least have some control over the use of their posts (including the right to modify or delete). Even when forums are provided as a free service. As some of the UK posters have pointed out, it's a question of dignity and respect.

Trust me, nothing about this is a tempest in a teapot. Or bizarre. Which is of course only my own opinion.

Jay

Your points are noted. In a completely unrelated world, I used to be a submissions editor for a poetry website, and had to spend more time dealing with personal attacks in the 'criticsm' section than actually deciding what should be showcased and why. It was just amazing to me the amount of invective that gets piled on moderators and website owners for what is, essentially, a free service. Anyway, there are some curious and untried laws out there as yet regarding copyrighted content in forums such as these, however I would be willing to bet that because of the so-called boundary-less nature of the Internet, that almost none of the laws could ever be enforced anyway.

I think that whether or not a forum could be more democratic, that, I think, might be an interesting discussion, albeit an idealistic one.

Logged

Floating through the void in the caress of two giant pink lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith.

"If we all assume that all that we type becomes the property of this website and cyberspace in general, maybe this will be a great motivator to use common sense while posting."

And what does that common sense entail? Not telling our life stories, not spilling our guts out? Not say ANYTHING that might be injurious to us in the future, in the one space that one had assumed it was safe to do so? Because of the misguided, naive assumption that we had some rights to our words and our stories?

(Once again: I'm not imputing malign intentions to ANYONE. Nor am I disputing that the Internet is a very public space. I sense that many people are conflating two separate issues: privacy and control.)

Think for a moment: how bland would these forums be -- how meaningless in fact -- if we used "common sense" while posting in the sense suggested above?

Sure, people would post about meds and side effects, and the Off Topic forum would flourish. But what about the rest, if we all become wary and conservative and not bare ourselves in the hope of finding love and compassion and support? That is what is at stake here, and that is why I cannot understand why this would be dismissed as a tempest in a teapot issue.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Can you give an example, a hypothetical, of what dire event will come to pass under the current structure? I'm having trouble grasping this, though I was called "dumb" today earlier so maybe that's it.

Can you give an example, a hypothetical, of what dire event will come to pass under the current structure? I'm having trouble grasping this, though I was called "dumb" today earlier so maybe that's it.

I asked yesterday but for some reason my request was ignored.

You're not dumb. So I'm surprised you can't come up with a single hypothetical. Try coming up with a few; take it as a dare or a challenge if you like.

I'll quote Matt on this:

It's really about respect, respect for the individual HIV+ voice.

Reading the Zuiker interview on POZ I can see an attractive proposition arising from Mr Z's (rather vain IMHO) statement in answer to the Q "What will you do with the content of the Forums?"

"I think about me publishing those and putting that on the marketplace and having the proceeds go back to a non-profit AIDS organization. Perhaps we can package these stories, sell them and have the proceeds go to Kaiser. It would be so cool, right? Like the day we made history. BOOM. And all of a sudden weíd be selling this book of stories of people living with HIV, with all the profits going to the foundation. That would be so cool. It also might make for a powerful forward written by myself."

So what's to stop our lives and experiences becoming a fundraisier for an AIDS not-for-profit without so much as a say so?

I consider us all suckered unless S + S give (A) an unqualified assurance that we will be asked before any of our stories (ex CSI forum) won't be used without permission outside POZ/AM, cos as things stand I think they think they can take and do what they want with the content.

And (B) do the decent thing and return copyright of posts to the original poster, but I'd settle for (A)

Suckered.

Besides, the "event" doesn't have to be "dire." The fact that said hypothetical event can take place "without so much a say so." Peter Staley's reassurances and good intentions notwithstanding.

Second besides: just the possibility of said hypothetical event (dire or otherwise) is enough to make some people -- and not people who are cowards, as you implied earlier -- very uncomfortable. And make them therefore reticent. Or leave. That's what I'm trying to get at.

No, my knickers are not in a twist.

But there's something wrong about this game of cricket.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

So the only hypothetical is that this producer for CSI ran off a bit at the mouth with some lame idea that has probably 1% chance of actually happening and everyone's going ballistic and boycotting the board?